Mr TURNBULL (11:35 AM) —As I was saying yesterday before the debate was adjourned, the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 represents an assault by the Australian Labor Party on democracy itself. It is designed to tilt the playing field of political contention, already tilted heavily in favour of the Labor Party, for the reasons I set out yesterday, even further in the direction of the ALP. The rest of the bill, which deals with carbon sink forests, superannuation and other matters, all being continued from the previous parliament, are areas that will have support from all members of the House, and certainly should be assured a swift passage. But to include this poison pill, poisonous to democracy itself, shows the cynicism of the government. No sooner has the Labor Party moved onto the government benches than it is seeking to rort the electoral system so its extraordinary advantage, in financial terms, is made even greater.

I believe Australia needs thoroughgoing campaign finance reform. We need to look at campaign finance issues thoroughly, and that is why the shadow Assistant Treasurer will be moving a second reading amendment to refer the material relating to tax deductibility of political donations to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It is vital that we look at this properly because we are all concerned with questions of political influence from donors, be they from either side. That is always going to be a legitimate issue. But what is at stake here is democracy itself. What price democracy if one side of politics is able to spend four, five or six times as much money as the other side on advertising in a political campaign? How can our political system be genuinely contestable if that advantage is entrenched?

I mentioned yesterday one practical proposal, which I have canvassed for many years, long before I was a member of this House, and that is that we recognise the principal that political participation is limited to individuals—people, natural persons—who are on the electoral roll. They are the only ones who can vote; they are the only ones who can stand for parliament. If we take that logic through to the issue of campaign finance, we would be saying that political donations can come only from individuals, natural persons, who are on the electoral roll—not from unions, not from corporations, only from natural persons on the electoral roll—who certify that the donation or contribution is from their own funds. We can have a discussion about whether there should be an annual cap—speaking for myself, I think there should be—and what that level should be. If we do that, we will restore integrity into the situation of our campaign finances, which at present is the subject of so much criticism, and we will also go some way towards ensuring that our political system remains truly contestable.

We support this bill with the exception of the provisions relating to the deductibility of political contributions. I warmly support the amendment I have foreshadowed that my colleague will be moving when he speaks.